is a reflection of the importance of this issue as we head into a critical we share a believe that the makeup of the federal bench should be as richly diverse as the cases brought before it. now is the time to make professional diversity a priority. to get this important national conversation started, alliance for justice has issued a new report called broadening the bench which describes the current state of professional diversity and it shows that opportunity exists for a new approach to federal judge ships. report is available on our j.org and i hope everybody will read it. our analysis found that only 10

or fewer than four percent of the president's nominees have worked as lawyers at public interest or civil rights organizations. state and federal prosecutors's out number public defenders by more than 3:1. only 11 has a full-time academics. of those who worked in private over seven and 10 were for corporate law firms. it is the aggregate, eight -- nomineese president's have been either corporate lawyers or prosecutors and in some cases both. clearly, president obama's remarkable historic progress in advancing personal diversity has not yet been matched in the area

of professional diversity but change may be coming. before the rules changed, the rampant obstruction of judicial nominations i senate republicans had the effect of narrowing the field of potential candidates who could potentially expect to be confirmed. crosseds hope, fingers that in those days are over. what ever constrains the president as senators and and even potential nominees themselves as a result of the debilitating efforts of obstruction tactics can now be set aside. rules mean new opportunities for diversity for all kinds. far, 2014, the outlook is great. with the first judicial nomination of the year, president obama has taken a positive step toward increasing

professional diversity. on january 16, president obama fillated 4 lawyers to vacancies in illinois, washington, missouri, and nevada. all four have backgrounds that are currently underrepresented among federal judges. 2 have substantial trial experience. one is a former public defender. one is a state court judge who was a solo practitioner focused on criminal defense. with now more than 50 vacancies without a nominee at with more vacancies surely to emerge, there will be ample opportunity to turn these promising nominees and to the norm rather than the exception. as we move forward, there are three things we would like to

see happen. one is now that the senate rules have changed, we call a variety of backgrounds to put themselves forward for seats on the bench. we often fault our political leaders for lack of professional diversity. it is also the responsibility of those of us whole to make a great judges to make themselves available and for those of us who care about this to encourage them to do so. second, senators, state nominated commissions should make a serious concerted effort to advance professional diverse nominees. as concerned americans from all over the country, bar groups, legal groups should insist that they do so. finally, president obama should let it be known that he expects

to see nominees with a wider range of background put forth by senators. rules reform has opened the path to a more exclusive bench and we should take it. that is where alliance for justice stands. we are going to get to the perspective of two brilliant legal minds. who have written and spoken extensively about the topic of judicial nomination selection and the courts. was anancy gertner federal district judge from massachusetts appointed by president clinton back in 1994. she teaches at harvard. she lectures and writes on a host of issues including civil rights and liberties, criminal justice, and women's issues. she is the author of an autobiography with a fantastic title "in defense all women,

memoir of an unrepentant advocate." that is good. we are thrilled she is here to offer the insight of somebody who was actually search on the bench as sees this issue from a unique perspective. byhope to also be joined sherilyn who is stuck on a train from a baltimore. thank you, amtrak. we hope she will be here. she is a wonderful president and director counsel of the naacp legal defense and educational fund and what of the strongest advocates i have ever met for ,ivil rights, civil liberties the rights of everyday americans to my and i firstly in every walk of life including the judiciary. when we need a people and the legal professional who have devoted themselves to the public

interest, sherilyn is one of the top people on our list. let's get started judge gertner. we will love for you to share initial thoughts and we will have some questions of our own. and thank you for joining us. [applause] >> it is wonderful to be here. i have no sympathy for people the west coast. i got up at four clock a.m. to make an airplane. e-mailed me on the plane and i say i am here but not awake, i will get here. it is wonderful to be here. the issue of judicial selection has been dominated over the last couple of years not inappropriately by the notion of having gender and race diversity and at that diversity -- ethnic diversey and that makes sense when you are telling young women

that the sky is the limit. in matters that are a women on the bench. minorities, it matters that there are people on the bench. that was terribly important. what we have not looked at which i felt personally when i went on of bench is the concept professional diversey which people have been talking about. i was a civil rights lawyer. , it begins with this tell of meet sonia sotomayor was a good friend of knowthe women wanted to how does one become a judge. she began by saying, first you go to this wonderful law school. you do very well as a you go to work for the government at any work in private practice.

you have opinions that you care careful -- that you care about. did you become a judge. [laughter] then it was my turn. i said, you represent the first antiwara revolutionary accused of killing a police officer you can find. [laughter] that would be your first case. you go to this wonderful law school a clerk for a judge. you take every abortion case that you give speeches on boston was threatened to burn my bar card. directorrry the legal of the civil liberties the union. and you become a judge. [laughter] looking fore bench very different than my colleagues. how did that make a difference? it makes a difference in so many do not understand

necessarily until you become a judge. it makes a difference in terms of your dockets which is the put you are privileged to on the afternoon at 5:00 when nobody is paying attention. for me, cases had a place on my docket that was as important as any other. matterstencing case, it how much information you are going to allow the parties to bring out. for the government, the only important information is what was he charged with and what was his criminal record? if you care about meaningful sentences, you wanted to find out about the defendant and you gave him the opportunity to find out. sometimes it meant being able to envision what discrimination consisted of. one of the things i had written about is how so many cases are result of the defendant brenda

somma notion that judges are typically top -- bringing some notion that judges article he told, you will deny summary judgment. the dockets, denied trial. if you want to get rid of the case, you have to write a decision. an overwhelming number of civil rights cases, the numbers and some jurisdictions are 100% get resolved on summary judgment without a trial. the judges write an opinion and each opinion is only in terms of the losing cases. those are the only times i have to write. over time, they think they are trivial. they cannot imagine what discrimination is because they are custom only dismissing these cases. if you get in the habit of saying no, you lose the ability to see what yes it looks like. i have seen that across the spectrum from discrimination

cases to criminal cases. if you costly are excusing err or, you lose the ability to be able to see error when it happens. without that baby just school, -- when i was a baby just school, at the trader had been trading judges in the previous administration. he got in front as said here is how you got rid of these cases. talk about civil rights cases. antigay was a checklist of all of the technical ways of dismissed -- and he gave us a checklist of all the technical ways of dismissing cases. i was not confirmed. i had but with a senate hearing but i had not been confirmed by the full senate. i raised my hand and said that is stuck in the enterprise of these cases. of my colleagues took my

hand and asked if i would be quiet. i was never quiet again. numbers, not just the schedule and what you privilege by your schedule, it is a question of complaints where the judge have to define what is plausible. if you cannot envision discrimination because you never seen it in your life, you are going to have a different view of what is plausible. there are discovered wools that are pending -- wools that are pending -- rules that are pending. judges are supposed to evaluate whether this discovery is proportional to the issues involved in the case. like so my colleagues have said, you think $10,000 cases, to view is very your

different. i did not come from wealth. in my view, $10,000 is not a minimalist case. those are the kind of decisions that a judge has to make from beginning to end. plausibility, credibility, bouncing questions in which you have to judge. the date of harvard law school put in a wonderful way as said there is no escape on the bench. the choice of what to docket and how to what is possible and what is credible and choice of what proportional, if you are making these decisions having no concept of what is at stake, did you make them very, very differently. i will end by one other point. we'll have a larger discussion. it is comforting now for many

judges and lawyers to talk about the costs of litigation. transaction costs that we are revamping the federal wools -- rules to minimize. stand back a bit from that. what is also going on is that we think the trans-action calls are more important than the problem of rights. when you think about that, we think costs are more important that the problem of people having access to justice. in a discovery, i am going to be concerned, some judges would say, that this litigation is going to cost this major corporation some money to find out about policies and practices of discrimination. i care about the cost of litigation. i try to be an efficient judge. i also care that underneath that pile of sacks with evidence --

facts with evidence and the costs were not tromping the concern of the under addressed rights. it is not just a question of getting on the bench, wearing the robe, is suddenly having a lobotomy with respect to every opinion you had in your life. in fact, your life experiences affect what you do for procedural decisions to substantive decisions. you have to struggle with those experiences. not a one-to-one correlation. it interest into the calculus -- it enters into the calculus and if you do not have this type of perspective at all, the balance is very different. thank you. [applause]

>> so, i have a series of questions to ask and then we are looking forward to many of you asking questions as well. before i begin, i want to thank one more cosponsoring justice at stake. i will cut you nancy. -- call you nancy. >> and that's a compliment. so does i like to be called, hon instead of honorable. did withinterview you anne-marie law school in 2012, 2012, youaw school in find law students to be extraordinarily cautious and afraid to take positions. with advocacys

backgrounds are appointed to judgeships, do you think that would encourage law students to be more outspoken? >> i think there is no question that would make a difference. there really is a sense that in order to be a judge you have to keep your head down throughout your life and avoided making controversial statements. that is the only way you get on the bench. what happens after that point is first of all, becoming a judge is a little bit like lightning striking you. you cannot count on it and you did not know if it will happen. who hasted a generation gotten into the habit of keeping their head down and not engaging there beissues unless consequences in their career. i am so grateful that i was able to have the career that i have

had is still become a judge. and i when not have changed anything and that career for a nano second. you have been on the bench for well over a decade. >> 17 years. >> what changes have you observed on the bench? served? years you have >> something i am trying to write about, iphoto the pressures on the bench -- i felt the pressures on the bench were not ideological. not the way people talk about judges, not political pressures. they were surely pressures to keep your head down. they were pressures to push people to settle cases and to encourage people to plead guilty. they were pressures not to write during the course at our

training, we were told if you wrote a decision you failed. that led to the dynamic that i described. if you're denying summary judgment, that means the plaintiff can go to a jury trial , you do not have to write a decision. that meant you never described when the plaintiff won in any legal opinion. the pressures to not write an opinion but to push people to settle and accept pleas of guilty. pressure to keep your head down in so many ways. , it i would write a decision did a lot of sentencing. i would write a decision about why i sentence somebody to a particular outcome. i would meet a judge on the street hold tell me is a courageous decision. this is a comprehensible statement. i had a life tenure. what were they going to do, vote me off the island? -- and try toion

understand what courage meant in that context. i think that with the sense that you do not want to see your name in the paper. you did not want to be all 24/7 news coverage. and i think this conspired with the view of managerial justice which is my goal to move the case. ofyou follow the moving cases and avoided transaction cost model, you cannot be criticized. that that wasnse animating a lot of the pressures that i felt. that was a change. seeing it now in the debates over new discovery rules for the concerta is the cost of corporation having to produce discovery. thing to weare

what a another mega-corporation. when rights are involved of consumers of people claiming discrimination or prisoners, there has to be some concern for that side of the balance as well. can agree or conventional wisdom that people with public interest backgrounds will have a more difficult time getting a judgeship. those are the realities of the think our view is if you do not try, we will never succeed. with a letter from previous can learn frome previous presidents who put out dozens of a certain kind of candidate. candidates 12 or 15 from public interest backgrounds, is hard to shoot them all down. of how weur sense change this conversation?

today is the opening of that change. how do we continue to really impress upon senators, nominating commissions, the white house? who importantly, all of us, are afraid to enter into this field because of the kinds of obstruction even with this new opportunity. what is your sense? >> senator warren's committee which ice chair -- which i chair is a way to do it and talks to every member. judicial nominations and go to her. she talks to everyone that said i want to wonderful people, highly qualified people. i also want people from different corners of the profession. i want to see consumer advocates

in the mix and public defenders. i want to see people from small firms to know what it's like to struggle to make a living. i want to see all of that and we got those nominations. those nominations we recommended to her included a labor lawyer, a magistrate who had been a public defender, a district attorney who had run for office prior to that. and now, there's a note around. i look at them briefly. -- there's a note or r -- another round. people who look different than what would've seen before. essentially, she led by her example. she said the corners of the profession and we pulled people that represented these professions as said couple we really mean it. is not just a sham. we really mean it. now people saw who she recommended that the president

nominated at they understand that we really mean it. let me tell one story. and enormous pressure to move cases. we have to be efficient. one day, a case came to me. anuy who lost his arm in accident. he sued the company that won a bunch of money that went to the court of appeals and it was reversed. i guided it the second time around. the man had died while the case was pending. the lawyer had to file a paper. the lawyer did not. he missed his deadline. it was at the time of the month where i had to report my candidate cases and was pressure to get rid of cases. my law clerk came in and said there is a case that the lawyer has missed the deadline. you can't deny the -- you canada

night estate a second trial -- the estate as second trial and will look good on you. he looked up at me as said justice and the world suggest you let it go forward. [laughter] that is what i mean. if you cared that this family had a sense of access to justice, a sense that the system was not looking for it trip wires, technical ways of getting rid of cases. i very much care because i had been a lawyer and advocate that you let the case go forward. it was forward in the name of theestate and he lost second time around. the family had a sense that the federal court was not about technicality. that made a difference to me. and have one last question then we will open it up to our audience. nancy, how can a judge

blend the responsibilities of neutrality with her identity prior to her judgeship whether that was as an advocate, activist, or trial lawyer? does becoming a judge mean the creation of an entirely distinct professional identity or is there more of a relationship relationship prior and work as a judge? >> i had the question many times. i actually think it was easier for me to judge precisely because of my advocacy. here is why. i knew exactly what i believed in. i do exactly what i believed in. i did not believe ice and my light -- i spent my life not to read in the paper and taking the position and i was suddenly

purge of every opinion i had in my life. i knew exactly what i believed in. what that meant was i knew what to struggle with. then that they should not translate one-to-one with being a judge. outs not there to carry what my advocacy had been. i struggled. judging for me was about having a belly ache. i'm sure there's a fancier word. it was a struggle. i like to think about it. i had been a criminal defense lawyer is certainly on the bench at times where i saw police officers we believe a lie. an officer took the stand, i have had this experience. the officer took the stand. i believe tell. i simply believe tell. -- i believed him.

i simply believe tell. i do you can separate what you had been before and what you are now. you can struggle. you can see a police officer lying. with the evidence suggested he did, you were not about to say that cannot i simply happen. as i said, i can separate out my advocacy. i had a death penalty case was that i had been opposed to the death penalty all my life. i knew it was part of the judge and the day might come. it was not easy, it was complicated. i thought to the way to address it was to make sure that it was the most fair trial i knew how to give. the outcome would be death and i would have to go along with it and i'll have to implement the law. i was going to measure the process was fair. my -- what knew that

my advocacy was. i was convinced it made it easier for me to be a judge because it was right out there. those people who have become judges and pretend they do not have a life experience and they do not have biases, then they do not struggle. i knew where my advocacy ended at my judging began. now i am writing about my career as a judge and i can go over cases i wish it came out differently. i do not want them to come out that way but i knew the law lead in that direction. it is a struggle that an explicit struggle with me. i think they did easier. >> i went to break a promise. one more question. if you had two minutes with president obama, what would you say to him about federal judges?

>> it matters who you put on the bench. it matters in so many ways. it matters whether you have a judge who is sitting on a constitutional issue is raised and they say how interesting, i am going to go and read everything i doubt -- about it that i can versus a judge who says shouldn't you settle? i would've rather not deal with this. it matters whether you have a judge who can understand access to justice issues. i had a civil rights case it wrong. and a wrongful conviction cases where a man was exonerated that he went to sue the authorities that have been responsible. i read in the global one day that he's about to be deported. he had been released from joe and about to be deported. i called the hearing. how does that happen?

he is deported now when his trial is only months away. i wanted to understand it. somebody put their finger on their scale is all i wanted to know. did somebody say he is a legal and should go ahead and support him? i held a hearing and the global covered it. it was erroneous. if i had not stepped in, he .ould have been deported who would've known how difficult or easy it would've been to get him back. for me, that was an axis to justice issue. not an outcome issue. shouldn't we all be working to make certain that his rights were litigated here and reflected here? justice is a mutual term. president obama should care

about rules that take away access to justice and judges who are more concerned about their numbers began about people litigating the rights. of -- >> if all of our nominees were like a judge nancy over here -- [applause] we will entertain questions that some of you have. these identify yourself. -- please identify yourself. >> i am executive vice president. thank you for being here. it is so incredibly inspiring. i have a couple questions about judicial election committees. your committee is ideal. you have been functioning well and adding to diverse city. it is not true in all states where we have committees that have taken months if not years to come up with recommendations as so we are still waiting. is, is there that

any reason that you can explain why a committee shouldn't take that long or any advice you could give us in terms of challenging what might be going on and those committees? i think it is a delaying tactic. the second question, massachusetts is ideal because you senator warren taking over the lead and insisting that would need to be diverse and you get diverse recommendations. that is not true in all cases. when you have a committee that is maybe not balanced, what can we do as advocates and is organizations that are interested in this process? what we do to help diversify these committees so they end up finding more diverse nominees? >> part of it is what you are doing today -- naming the problem. i do not a people named it before. corporate lawyer

who was getting on the bench and was a democrat and you said fine. the prosecutor was getting on the bench and with democrat, you said we have satisfied the issues. or a woman or minority what exactly the same career as a white colleague and then you said you are ok. i think naming this issue and implications for the bench is terribly important. as far as the delay, we had to compromise on the one hand, coming up with a very expensive search and fill it with the political realities in washington. the reason teams moved as quickly as they did is senator warren had no problem call it be and night. none whatsoever. say is going on, she would that i would have to tell her. i want a name by this date. you have to call out those committees that are waiting. you have to make sure -- you have to name it. you have nothing else except

press and political pressure. we have not named this before. it really makes a difference. a process of maybe the previous procedural review and the senate, while there are wonderful state judges of the federal bench, there's no question there are. wonderful corporate lawyers and prosecutors. -- and theigher desire to have nominees without controversy has led to a pattern which we never signed his country before which a state court judge and magistrates in district court georges and state of appeals. all the one hand, there that wonderful people throughout the mechanism. it also promotes a certain committee. you are not going to go up the ladder if you declare this a law unconstitutional. you are not going to go up the ladder if you do part sentencing

cases. createddegree, we have a recruitment process and that in fact encourages judges to keep their head down. we want to look at that again. there are wonderful people. saying.ns to all im we are talking about big patterns. >> anyone else have a question? >> good morning. i am lois frankel. i spent many years working in massachusetts on gender equality issues. comesurious about what about what we were talking before. in the system, people figured out you need national organizations gannett co. women and particular through emily's list and so forth a getting on that latter in the first place. getting to the federal bench especially advocating for many pipelines to that career, i am

curious if their efforts underway to get people thinking about that? and for diversifying, how do you do that? committee and held our committee to go to as many meetings as bar association's as you could possibly go to. went to whatever organizational meetings. we had all of the dean's of the law schools in massachusetts do a e-mail blast to their own law to let people know that there were vacancies. and also to describe what elizabeth warren had said that we are looking for nontraditional candidates and the way she described. i think the other way we wrote about this in newspapers and we let the newspapers know about it. there was example of having done it.

the choices that we made made it clear to people that senator warren and markey meant what they were saying. on the ways of getting bench. it was not easy. the american bar association's progress which is a very important process, they typically call big firm lawyers. if you are selecting somebody from a small firm or somebody who is not a prosecutor, you discover that the vetting process of the bar association does not know how to deal with this person. they wound up looking at the people who knew her work that came up with fabulous recommendations. the system has been structured in such a way that the people who get to the top of the list are only certain kinds of people.

>> we have time for one or two more questions. >> when senator kennedy chaired the judiciary, i did the nomination. president whod a was as bit as kennedy on by diversifying the bench. and i've helped two other centers set up commissions. -- senators set up commissions. whether regards another supreme court vacancy are you atentially -- when there is note of supreme court vacancy are you potentially available? ago,then which is 25 years the aba's review despite familiarity was only big firm were a was that if you title vii lawyer or environmental lawyer, you cannot

possibly handle the great range of federal jurisdiction. if you were securities litigator on wall street, no problem. i wonder to the extent that you have a sense that that has it is as muchher of a problem then becomes the role that the aba ratings play? of athink it is as much problem as something we have to work on. i was asked after i'd been a criminal defense as civil rights lawyer how i could possibly be a judge and we do not ask prosecutors to those questions. everybody has to change on the bench. you have to moved to neutral. everybody has to do it. i think the aba process has to be looked at more carefully. they have to understand the premium is as much on diverse the as we understand it.

think itf anything, i is an issue that defines my career as a judge. it is more that i have been a litigator than anything also stopped it did not matter which side. as a litigator, i saw things in the courtroom i am not sure that others would see. people who simply knows the courts, they could be labor litigators, civil rights litigators, corporate litigators or all of that. i am a massachusetts crazy sports fan. it is like basketball where some players see the court. i would see the court. i would understand what was going on and cared very much about everybody having access to justice. we have to begin to open up that discussion. in a way that we have not. the public sees only supreme

court operation adherence which kabuki ritual. as to the other question if i am available for the supreme court, not after i have been speaking out as i have. one of the reasons i left the bench was in order to speak. as my husband likes to say, not that i can speak, i cannot seem to shut up. nancy, thank you for speaking today. [applause] openness, foryour sharing your reflections, it really enriching the discussion that will be brought forward by all of the wonderful people in this room the people participating all live stream. wow. if your classes are anything like this morning, we are all signing up at law school.

not really. i cannot do it again. i would like to. thank you. we are so sorry that sherilyn could not join us. but, she has written extensively on this topic and we will make her writings and articles available on our website for all of us to look at. thank you for comment. it is a great morning. -- thank you all for coming. -- it has been a great morning. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i came to washington to investigate. my department is investigating for a year and a half an hour. five or six days a week.

8-10 hours a day. finance,eld of globalization. and i had a great galaxy of people on the stand. never would have called a man -- c-span radio continues our series of oral history interviews with former supreme court justices. justice ofrom 1967, douglas. online at c-span.org and nationwide on xm satellite chann el 120. think the american that sees the first ladies in a very glamorous circumstances like for a state dinner in a beautiful down. -- gown.

or a speech where heads of suits they mayer, but what not imagine looking at the white house from the outside is it is actually a very normal life of floors whicht two are the residents. the first ladies probably and i know i did i would lie on the couch and read a book. would curl up cat next to me. atgo to our website www.c-span.org or see it on saturday. and on monday, it continues. oversight,the house -- at the house oversight, elijah cummings spoke about his investigation.

>> and the ranking member of this committee. i did nothing different that what mr. issa did. want to say i was acting on behalf of the committee and to basically looking get to the voting situations and whether voters were in any way being impeded from voting. we have the letters by the way. issa saw was sent -- would send copies. >> i think the gentleman wants to make sure it's that you have the opportunity and, the gentleman from maryland obviously is from a targeting standpoint, it led him follow-up and give him the yielding and that neitherre you

he nor his staff or anyone else would have contacted the irs and to do that and so i yield to the gentleman. >> i would assure you. i want to thank the gentleman for that. there is no one that i know of that cares more about the rights of our citizens than i do. but just as you all have the passion and i respect that, i, too, have the passion. make sure that no one, i don't care if it's tea party, republican or democrat, nobody is blocked from voting. there's no way that i would be sitting here today, no way,

unless it was for -- unless we had fair voting in this nation. my 88-year-old mother who is probably watching us right now could not vote. and the last thing i said, ma, one of the things she said to me, i do not want to die with a thought that my peep are losing their right to vote. and so i got to tell you, i want to thank the gentleman, because i want that to be clear. and i will fight until i die -- until i die -- for the right to vote, because it's not about me. it's about generations yet unborn and their rights. and just like you all care about irs not doing the things that you feel they did. i feel the same way. i don't want the irs targeting anybody. but at the same time, i have the same passion about that right to vote. and again, i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. >> i want the gentleman to be

able to assure her that -- and i'll let him speak to this -- that he did not direct his staff nor anybody at the irs to investigate you and look into this particular manner. >> ithe presidin >> here is what mcconnell had to say. an inspector general's report confirmed what we've been hearing from constituents transvestite quite a while, that the i.r.s. was being used to target americans for daring to exercise their first amendment rights. for daring to think differently, for daring to hold opinions contrary to high-ranking government officials. they confirmed that civic groups the administration opposed, including at least one in my

home state of kentucky, were harassed and bullied by the i.r.s. they confirmed that individuals who supported these groups were intimidated and attacked. and they confirmed something else, too, that this happened in the runup to a national election. so americans were rightly outraged, outraged, when the worst fears of citizen organizations came to light. and americans rightly expressed the obama -- the american people rightly expected the obama administration to take concrete steps to end this harassment once and for all. to put safeguards in place that would ensure the same kind of abuse could never, ever happen again. but that's not what happened. no, in fact, basically the

opposite of that happened. the obama administration now seems to be trying to legitimize the harassment after the fact. to enact regulations that would essentially allow the i.r.s. to bully and intimidate americans who exercise their right of free speech. it's something they were originally planning to actually slip by while the harassment was actually still going on. but here's the thing -- the administration knew it could never get anything like that through congress the democratic way, so it's trying to quietly impose these new regulations through the back door, through the back door by executive fiat. administration officials insist the rules change is just a minor -- just a minor bureaucratic adjustment. nothing to it, they say.

they claim it's just a good-government idea from the i.r.s., a response to the inspector general report that brought these terrible abuses to light. but, of course, we know that's not true. we know that the administration has been working on this proposed rule for at least two years -- two years -- before the inspector general report came out. and from the looks of things, there's nothing good government about this at all. like so much of what we've seen with the obama administration, it's almost purely political. transparently political. under the administration's proposed regulations, many citizen groups could be prohibited -- prohibited -- from participating in some of the most basic civic engagement activities. things like voter registration, issue advocacy, and educating citizens about candidates before

an election. this is just plain wrong. grassroots groups shouldn't be persecuted for doing the very things americans expect them to do. they shouldn't be forced to shut up or shut down for engaging in the very kind of educational activities that 501-c-4 nation was -- designation was kind do support. the idea is to shut down the voices that oppose the administration's priorities and it comes on the heels of a long-running pet project of this administration to expose conservative donors to harassment in order to try to dry up their funding. americans who care about the first amendment need to stand up to this regulation before the administration has a chance to finalize it. the american people need to stand up to this regulation before the administration has a chance to finalize it.

and they actually are. more than 20,000 citizens have already submitted comments on this proposed rule at regulations.gov, northeasterly all the ones i saw were opposed. -- nearly all the ones i saw were opposed. in the house representative dave camp has proposed legislation that would prevent the i.r.s. from implementing any such regulation and next week along with senator flake, senator roberts and i will introduce companion legislation that would do the same thing here in the senate. but i hope it doesn't have to come to that. there's a much easier fix here. there's a way out of this dilemma. the new commissioner of the i.r.s., john koskinen, can put a stop to the rule right now if he chooses. he can stop this thing right now if he chooses. and if he means it when he said

when the senate confirmed him, the comments we heard about restoring integrity to the i.r.s., then he'll do just that. the speaker and i along with top senate and house leadership and leadership of the relevant authorizing and appropriating committees have just sent a letter to mr. koskinen on this topic, and we look forward to his response. back in the 1970's, richard nixon famously tried to influence the i.r.s. into helping him punish his political opponents. you see, the i.r.s. has been in this spot before. back then, the i.r.s. commissioner stood up to president nixon and said essentially no, that's not what this agency is supposed to do. so the history of this is, when a previous i.r.s. commissioner had a president of the united states try to use him to target

his political enemies, the commissioner of i.r.s. stood up to the president and said no. said no to the president. you can't use the i.r.s. to target your political enemies. that act of courage and independence became the defining act of an already distinguished career. and it was something the american taxpayer should be forever grateful for. so today, commissioner koskinen has a similar choice. he can either be remembered as the man who reformed this i.r.s. at a time when americans were deeply distrustful of it, or he can be remembered as the man who allowed himself to be used by the administration for its own political ends. that's the choice. the bottom line is this -- americans need to be able to trust the i.r.s. again. and that means getting out of the nation's -- getting our

nation's tax agency back into the commission it was -- mission it was designed to proarm, things like processing tax returns, not regulating free speech. the obama administration's proposed rule has almost nothing, nothing to do with actual tax policy. it's more about making harassment of its political opponents the official policy of the i.r.s. that, mr. president, is completely unacceptable. remember, this is an agency that has access to some of america's most sensitive personal information. the power to audit, to penalize, to harass, power that is pretty wide-ranging. so it's not surprising that groups all across the political spectrum from the aclu to the

chamber of commerce chamber have expressed concerns about this rule. so let's be clear. let's be perfectly clear. commissioner koskinen, you know, you know that the i.r.s. has no business regulating free speech. you know that. the eyes of america are on you. they're counting on you to do the right thing.

>> tax reporter for the hill newspaper, part of the week in congress has been about the irs. mcconnell: help will happen with the regulations? scandal received from the headlines the last few months, it is coming back in a big way. the republicans want new rules that the obama administration rolled out last year. they would clarify what sort of counts as political activity. mostly the ones who have the extra scrutiny from the irs. republicans say it would codify the targeting. it would stifle these groups, which historically has been more likely to be tea party or conservative groups.

ises the new irs director walking into the storm of proposed regulations. these aren't even regulations. these are proposed regulations. what is the next step to make them take effect? >> the new commissioner has been quick about passing regulations. on iss currently going these rules are in the public comments area. 21,000.w they have -- they'res asked going to do a methodical look at this. they will then take it from there. what they released last november isn't necessarily going to be what the final roles are. there are big questions, including how much political activity these groups should be able to engage in.

>> your story on this issue is republicans unload on the irs another related issue, the subcommittee hearing from a number of groups today. what happened in that hearing? what were they looking for? >> the whole purpose of that hearing to start was that there have been concerns on the republican side that one of the key justice department lawyers investigating the case is a political donor to obama. she has given thousands of dollars to him. she wasn't allowed to come. what happened was there was a tea party leader who essentially accuse the top democrat on the cummings, ofijah avoiding her. she started applying for tax-exempt status, that is when she started getting audited. her businesses get audited.

from there, it snowballed. she is suggests that she would file an ethics complaint against elijah cummings. >> how did he react? >> he didn't take it well. to be fair, some republicans on the committee were unsure about it. as oversight. he was looking into reports that one of the persons groups was sort of from his perspective harassing voters who wanted to vote. these are mostly minority voters who would not vote for the side that she would want, so instead of adding them vote, they were having challenges. unnecessary. he deemed them harassment. >> he subcommittee is one of a couple of congressional committees looking at the irs. how many investigations in

congress, or elsewhere in government are going on? >> the most recent number we have heard is six. there is still the ongoing justice investigations. there are a couple of investigations looking into it. the house ways and means committee. they are hoping to get this wrapped up fairly quickly. if you talked republicans, they are being cleared of this is still ongoing. issue, youthe first mentioned the irs is still taking hearings on this. what about congress? will they have hearings on these regulations? >> there is upping scheduled on them yet. interest amount of that it has caused, i would imagine the further we get

along, they will be hearing specifically on this. since november when these were released, there have been a couple of hearings on the irs in general. these have,. >> bernie becker covers tax issues for the on the money blog on the hill. you can read his reporting at the hill.com. >> he has written a follow-up piece on the irs saying that the senate finance committee will be unable to complete a bipartisan investigation into the irs controversy. -- utah republican would approvedation was today. you can weigh an eye visiting our facebook page or comment on twitter. here is what some viewers are saying.

the irs targeted both conservative and liberal groups. issa refuses to knowledge that. she says, impressive and significant testimony indicting the irs and obama. facebook.com is where you can comment. now, onto the house oversight subcommittee hearing on the irs. the justice department attorney declined to appear. members her from conservative groups claiming to be victims of politicized irs harassment. the chair is jim jordan, the ohio republican.

applied for tax exempt status. our live coverage getting under way right here, right now, on c-span 3. >> committee will come to order. i want to welcome our witnesses today. have to put up with a couple opening statements from myself, mr. cartwright. we'll swear you in and get to

your testimony. we'll get to you just as quickly as we can. may 10th last year, lois learner with a plan in question had a meeting here in town disclosed targeting of conservative groups took place. she disclosed that even before the inspector general report was released, shde that after consulting with the chief of staff at the treasury department. put him on notice they were going to do it this way. get out in front of this story. and she said this. want to read from miss learner's comments. she disclosed the systemic targeting of tea party groups, conservative groups, have taken place. shep said, quote, they use names like tea party or patriot. simply because those application, had those names in

the title. this additional scrutiny not only delayed the processing of their applications for a period of years but also resolving intrusive questions from the irs that were far beyond the scope of legitimate inquiry. when this thursding first broke. that people were targeted and delayed for years. attorney general holder said this was outrageous and unacceptable. the president said we will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency. but one month after that, in a hearing in front of the judiciary committee, then fbi director mooul mueller was asked a question. can you tell me who the agent is in the case? can you tell me how many agents

have been assigned to the case? can you tell me any of the victims? his answer to those three questions, i don't know, i don't know, i don't know. not exactly inspiring much confidence in the type of investigation the fbi and the justice tent were engaged in. just recently, we learned that the person heading the investigation, barbara boxerman, gave $6,750 to the obama campaign and to the democrat national committee. again, we learned this not because the fbi told us, not because the justice department told us. current and former irs employees told us that she was the one leading the investigations. a lady who's invested in the

president's success. and we're supposed to believe this investigation is possible. we wanted her to be sitting there with the people who were victimized by the irs. i sent a letter -- i sent two letters. mrs. wasserman didn't respond back to me. he sent me two letters within five days. within the last ten days, we got those letters. in fact, mr. cole was in front of the investigating committee. and asked him those same three questions. you say it's a team. and not miss wasserman as we understand it to be. can you tell me who's on the team? his answers were the same as mr. mueller's clear back in the summer of 2013. in those two letters, mr. cole said this was an ongoing

investigation. in fact, he said it seven times. ongoing investigation. and yet to my knowledge no victims have been interviewed by the justice department. ongoing investigation. and yet "the wall street journal," through leaked sources, has reported that no one's going to be recommended for prosecution. ongoing investigation. the president of the united states can go on national television on a day when a lot of people watch television and say, quote, there's not a smidgen of corruption in the irs targeting scandal. here we are today. miss wasserman won't come. the fbi won't answer any questions. the president said it's over. "the wall street journal" report said it's over. we thought what we'd do today is allow people who were victimized by the internal revenue service to come tell their story. the fbi may not want to interview you, miss engelbrecht

and miss garrettson, but this committee does. our witnesses this morning experienced the irs targeting firsthand in the form of trying to exercise their first amendment rights to make our country a better place for their neighbors and friends. they were harassed at the hands of their very government. in addition to the irs, miss engelbrecht was scrutinized by the fbi, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and osha. we recognize and we deeply appreciate the courage it takes for you to come here and testify today. both miss engelbrecht and miss garrettson have counsel. these fine attorneys are also experts in the nonprofit field and represent dozens of clients that were mistreated by the internal revenue service. in this capacity, they were able to shed light on the process and the abnormalities of the treatment fashioned by conservative groups. hopefully, this morning's

hearing advances the committee's interest in getting closer to the truth. which is what -- when i'm out and about, ohio, across the country, i get that question more than anything else. we want to know the truth and we want people held accountable. i get it all the time. is that going to happen? i tell those people we're going to do everything we can to get to the truth and hold people accountable. here's why it's so important. i'll finish here and recognize mr. cartwrite. when the founders put together the first amendment and all the rights that are contained. freedom of speech. when they talked about freedom of speech, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is your right to political speech. your right to criticize your government. and that is the very thing that the irs attacked. and that is why this hearing and this subject is so important. and that's why i'm pleased to have the witnesses we have today. with that, i would yield to the

ranking member, mr. cartwright. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i have noted in previous hearings of this committee, i also am deeply troubled regarding irs employees improper handling of application for tax exempt status. a handling that pervades the american political spectrum. it includes obviously right wing groups and also left wing groups. and we'll talk about that in a moment. since the chairman has just raised it, including allegations about attorney barbara wasserman. part of the premise of this hearing is that the witnesses have concerns about the department of justice's investigation of the irs for the improper treatment of tax excemt organizations. has, quote, the appearance of substantial and material conflict of interest, end quote. he has made that claim because a career prosecutor who is one of

at least 13 doj and fbi employees involved in the investigation made political donations to the dnc and the president's campaign. i'm here to tell you we have consulted with legal experts. they have flatly rejected chairman jordan's interpretation of the law. one such expert is professor bruce green of fordham university law school who for the last 27 years has taught courses related to legal ethics and criminal law and procedure, including a seminar on ethics. professor green also served as social counsel in the independent office. who prosecuted individuals in the iran/contra affair. and later served as appointee of then new york city mayor rudy giuliani for the new york city conflicts of interest board. quote, this scenario does not constitute a conflict of

interest, unquote. professor green added more pointedly, quote, a career prosecutor assigned to investigate a federal official would not have a conflict of interest simply because the prosecutor contributed to one or the other party or to one or the other presidential candidate. unquote. professor green furthermore explained, quote, because political donations are not a relevant consideration in making assignments, that is case assignments, it would not be appropriate for the department of justice leadership to check career prosecutors political donations before assigning them to investigation. i asked unanimous consent to enter the responses from professor green, as well as statement of columbia university professor daniel richman into the record. >> without objection. >> i would remind committee members that the hatch act is within this committee's jurisdiction.

and that it is -- and that in it congress explicitly states, quote, it is the policy of is congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal. and to the extend not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of this nation, unquote. calling this attorney not a political appointee but a career civil servant in to testify in public about an ongoing investigation and to accuse her of being politically biased because she was exercising her right to participate in the democratic process of this nation is unacceptable. i will be happy to hear from the appropriate person at the department of justice after the investigation is completed. and i thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back.

>>cy thai think the gentleman. put into the record csr 22. disqualification arising from political or personal relations. from the department of justice rule, ethical rules. i'll just quote. the employee's participation should not create an appearance. i would just remind my friend from pennsylvania that says likely to create public perception, affect the public perception of the integrity. less than, significantly less than 1% of the population contributes that kind of money to a political campaign. there are 10,000 employees of the justice department. you would think they could find someone else. you would think miss wasserman would look at this and say maybe i should recuse myself and not head up the investigation. i would ask this be entered into

the record as well. >> without objection. texas, mr i need to do unanimous consent that our colleague from texas, mr. powe be allowed to participate in today's hearing. mr. powe is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. katherine ingram burke is a friend of mine from houston. king street patriots is in my district. i have come to know her because her and her husband are small business owners. they're just trying to make a living in america. she started king street patriots and she also started true to vote because she was very concerned about voter corruption in texas. she found it through the use of public records and started those two programs, citizen active. as soon as she gets active in these two programs, true the vote, trying to make our voter process fair with integrity, she gets harassed by the federal government of the united states.

harassment, what does that mean? first the fbi came to see her, questioned her about some of the people that are attending her meetings. she had numerous meetings with the fbi including the fact that fbi would sit in the king street patriot meetings. that wasn't all. she was visited by osha. she was visited by the epa or the texas equivalent to the epa doing an investigation. she was visited by the atf and harassed by the atf. of course, she was harassed by the irs on numerous occasions. all she wanted was what every other organization that's trying to exercise the first amendment wants and deserves as a tax-exempt. because of that, as the chairman has said, the right to exercise the first amendment is there primarily so citizens can criticize government and not be afraid of government harassing them through their use of government administrative

bureaucrats. all of these things happened to her. fbi, osha, epa, atf, irs harassed her because of exercising her first amendment right, and i appreciate the fact that the witnesses are here to tell us how government oppressed them for exercising that. i would yield back to the chairman. thank you. we'll move to our witnesses. we have with us today katherine engelbrecht, found. mrs. cleat that mitchell. ms. becky gerritson, president of the wah tum ka tea party and mr. jay psych low, chief council of the american center for justice. please stand up, raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm

that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god. let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. i think you know how this works. you get approximately five minutes to make your statement. we'll be a little bit flexible. we'll start with you katherine. you're recognized. katherine, hit the -- >> thank you. good morning mr. chairman. my name is katherine engelbrecht, i'm the chairman of true the vote, a non-profit election integrity group, the founder of king street patriots and president of engelbrecht manufacturing. thank you for this opportunity to share my story with you today, though at the outset it must be said that it is a story with a central theme that is shared by countless thousands of other americans who have not yet

been heard from, though i pray that they will be. it must be made publicly known that across this country, citizens just like me are being targeted by an administration willing to take any action necessary to silence opposition. i am an average american who prior to 2009 had never been active in the processes of government. but after volunteering to work in the polls in texas in the 2009 elections, i saw fundamental procedural problems that i felt couldn't go unaddressed. so i started true the vote, an organization that grew into a national movement to ensure every american voter has an opportunity to participate in elections that are free and fair. my life before i got involved and spoke out for good government stands in stark contrast to the life i now lead. as a wife, a mother, a small business woman working with my husband, raising our children and participating in my church and pta, the government collected my taxes and left me and my family in peace.

but once i helped found true the vote and king street patriots, i found myself a target of this federal government. shortly after filing irs forms to establish 501(c)(3) andc 4 tax-exempt organizations an assortment of federal entities including law enforcement agencies and congressman cummings came knocking at my door. in nearly two decades of running our small business my husband and i never dealt with any government agency outside of filing our annual tax returns. we had never been audited. we had never been investigated. but all that changed upon submitting applications for the non-profit statuses of true the vote and king street. since that filing in 2010 my private businesses, my non-profit organizations, my family and i have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies. in 2011 my personal and business tax returns were audited by the internal revenue service, each

audit going back for a number of years. in 2012 my business was subjected to inspection by osha on a select occasion when neither my husband nor i were present. though the agency wrote it found nothing serious it still issued fines in excess of $20,000. in 2012 and 2013, the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms conducted comprehensive audits in my place of business. beginning in 2010, the fbi contacted my non-profit organization on six separate occasions wanting to cull through membership monday fests in conjunction with domestic terrorism cases. they eventually dropped all matters and have redacted nearly all my files. all of these incursions into my affairs began after filing applications for tax exemption. there is no other remarkable event. there's no other reason to explain how for decades i went unnoticed but now find myself on the receiving end of interagency coordination into and against all facets of my life, both personal and private.

bear in mind, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of this subcommittee, these events were occurring while the irs was sun jekting me with multiple rounds of abusive inquiries, asking about facebook and twitter, questions about my political aspirations and demands to know the names of groups i had spoken with, the content of what i said and everywhere i intended to speak. the answer to these sorts of questions are not of interest to the typical irs analysts but certainly of interest to a political machine that would put its own survival against the civil liberties for a private citizen. this government attacked me because of my political beliefs, but i refused to be cast as a victim, not to the irs, not to the fbi, not to osha, not to asf or any other government agency, i am not a victim because a victim has no options. i do have options, and i intend to use them to the fullest extent of my capabilities.

as an american citizen i'm part of a country that still believes in freedom of speech, and so i will continue to speak out here in congress and all across this country,ly continue to press in every legal way possible as i did by filing suit against the internal revenue service. no american citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. after all the tyranny and all the things that have been done to my organizations, my family and me, many people would quit. and, mr. chairman, many americans have quit. i have heard over and over that people are afraid to tell their stories. but know this, my experience at the hands of this government in the last five years have made me more determined ever than before to stand before you and to all of americans and say i will not retreat, i will not surrender. i will not be intimidated and i will not ask for permission to exercise my constitutional rights. i've come before you today, mr.

chairman, on behalf of americans just like me asking for a solution to end this ugly chapter of political intimidation. there was a time when people of good will were encouraged to participate in the processes of government, not targeted because of it. i applaud your request of the internal revenue service to withdraw a proposed regulation limiting political speech by non-profit organizations that action should be taken quickly and without fail because if it is not, it will codify into law the very thing that brings me here today. if those regulations pass, non-profit organizations across the country will be destroyed. no american regardless of their political affiliation should support the silencing of political speech. beyond ending the proposed irs regulations, i ask you, i implore you as representatives to the people of this great nation to pass a law that protects all citizens of this country from the increasing use

of such abusive practices, pass a law that exposing government officials who trample on the rights of ordinary citizens. do not allow them to continue to cower behind avail of secrecy of use of unethical and unfair behavior. send the president a bill that makes public persons agencies regulated, no restricted selectively released files. give us a truly transparent process. protect the people, restore liberty to the people because we will not be silenced. thank you for this opportunity, mr. chairman and committee members. >> thank you ms. engelbrecht and god bless you, we appreciate you being here today. i would like to enter into the record a letter that chairman issa and i sent to the new commissioner of the irs, john cosco anyone two days ago where we highlight some of the things

you reference in your testimony, specifically how this rule was being prepared long before the tig nah report came into existence and how lois lerner was intricately involved in putting this rule together. i would ask for unanimous consent to enter this into the record. without objection that will take place. ms. mitchell, you are now recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee. thank you very much for the opportunity to appear here today. i'm a practicing attorney, and i deal with the irs and have dealt with the irs on a daily basis for many, many years. what i do is i help people obtain the tax-exempt status or to fit their activities within the proper section of the tax code depending on what it is they want to do. i want to make three primary points here today. i'll be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. first, the irs scandal is real. it's not pretend. it's real.

number two, the irs scandal is not just a boneheaded bunch of bureaucrats in some remote office contrary to what the president of the united states told the american people on sunday. and number three, the irs scandal is not over. it is continuing to this day, and the department of justice investigation is a sham. it is a non-existent investigation. with regard to point number one, let me tell you in one sentence what the irs scandal is. the irs at the direction of some political elites in washington, not in cincinnati, but washington, took what had been for decades a process of reviewing applications for exempt status that a 5013c

company would expect to take three to four weeks and they converted the process into one that took three to four years and in some cases is still not over. number two, the line agents in the irs had their work disrupted and halted by washington. in 2010, true the volt filed its application for c 3 status and did not obtain that c 3 status until we sued the irs. so in september they granted it. people shouldn't have to sue to get their tax-exempt status. when lois lerner and president obama accused line agents in cincinnati of being responsible, ladies and gentlemen, that is a lie. i knew when lois lerner said that in may of 2010, when she admitted that it was happening, after we knew it was happening -- it's sort of like we knew we were targeted it's

just that she finally admitted it. i knew it hadn't happened in cincinnati because the first time i really became aware of this was with a group that i represent. we filed for tax-exempt status in october of 2009. besides cashing our check for our filing fee, we did not hear from the irs again until june of 2010 and we didn't hear from cincinnati. we heard from washington. that group did one thing. it lobbied against obama care. in the fall of 2009, spring of 20 10rks something a 501(c)(4) organization is permitted to spend 100% of its program expenditures doing. we didn't get the tax-exempt status for that organization until july of 2013. when i took on the representation of catherine engelbrecht and her two organizations in the fall of 2011 -- this is now a year after

she has sent her application to the irs and she's heard nothing, and when i talked to the assigned agent in cincinnati in october of 2011 saying we're going to supplement the application to try to help make it easier for you to process, he told me at the time, oh, there's a task force in washington. we can't do anything until we hear back from washington. number three, this scandal is not over. the lying has not stopped. i represent one tea party group, tea party patriots who applied in december 2010. they still don't have their c 4 status. there are lies upon lies in this ugly episode. the commissioner of the irs lied to congress -- i believe it was this committee 234 march of 2012 or april of 2012 when he said there was no targeting. how many communications from the irs to members of congress who

inquired about the status of applications and whether there was targeting, how many communications were there in which agents of the irs told congress that there was no targeting? those are lies. lying to congress is a crime. department of justice refused to investigate who it was who was responsible for releasing the confidential tax information of coke industries to the president's economic adviser who in turn released it to the press or released the national organization of marriages tax return, i represent nom. we sued irs to try to get to the bottom of why our confidential tax information was made available to our political opponents. where is the fbi in investigating? that is a criminal offense. it's a criminal offense also for the irs to have released to confidential donor information of the texas public policy 230u7b dags and the republican

governors public policy council, conservative organizations whose donor information was released by the irs. that's a criminal offense. who is investigating that? and then finally the lies -- again, it is a lie, it is a felony to lie to a federal agency, and yet the irs on the day after thanksgiving in proposing these regulations, the agent from the irs who transmitted those proposed regulations in the formal publication says that there are no related documents. that's what it says on the website. related documents, none. yet, i have submitted a four-year request on behalf of tea party patriots for turned lying background documents, they said we can't get your those documents until april. the public comment period closes february 27th. so there are no documents but it will take them until april to get them to us. that's a lie. they also lied when they transmitted those regulations

and said that the the purpose of the regulations was the tip that report. there are too many lies, mr. chairman. it's time to get to the dog, time for the fbi to investigate those criminal acts. it's time for the irs to cooperate as we try to get to the truth of why it's happened and how to make it stop. thank you. >> thank you, ms. mitchell. ms. garretson. thank you. >> thank you for inviting me here to speak. i can't tell you how much i appreciate you holding this hearing. unfortunately i'm not hear to carry a message of joy or thanksgiving. i'm in absolute grief for my be loved country. eight months ago i along with five other victims laid out our cases about irs abuses in a committee just like this. at that hearing we learned details about the irs leaking confidential donor information to opposition groups when proven this is a felony.

we learned of serious constitutional violations of the first and fifth amendments. we witnessed multiple violations of the administrative spreed your act as well as the internal revenue code. louis learner outright lied to the american people blaming the scandal on a few rogue agents in cincinnati knowing full well that the targeting involved irs offices across the country including her very own office in washington, d.c. lois lerner took the fifth for a reason. government employees don't go rogue en masse. their orders originate somewhere. yet even with all these known violations of the law, no one has been blamed, shamed, fired, arrested or brought to justice. because of that i have to ask how many people in congress are taking this seriously. since my last testimony in congress, i still have not been contacted by the fbi. the fbi told the "wall street journal" that no one would be charged with a crime, yet they haven't even interviewed the witnesses. are you going to let them get

away with this? if so, then i must say it again, my government has forgotten its place. it appears that many in washington fear regular citizens standing up for constitutional limited government. why in america is it now considered a threat to our government to study the founding documents and to advocate for responsible spending. why is giving out copies of the constitution, discussing pending legislation or even creating legislative score cards a threat to this administration? obviously these activities are viewed as subversive to their agenda. otherwise, they wouldn't have tried to stop us. in my previous testimony i explained that our application was complete and accurate. we easily qualified for a 501(c)(4) status, yet that did not stop the irs from demanding information they were not entitled to. unconstitutional requests that violated even their own rules. the information they demanded from us had nothing to do with

our tax status. why must the irs know who is coming to our meetings? why did they need to have copies of every speech ever given and the credentials of those speakers? why did they need to know who our donors were? there's clearly something wrong with this. the irs's targeting of the wet tum ka tea party and other conservative religious groups is profoundly disturbing. i'm offended a member of congress -- of the united states senate would continually request the irs to go after americans like me because they do not agree with our values. this sun precedented. never before has the federal government tried to muzzle everyday americans solely because of their political view. the governments of third world nations intimidate and harass dissenting citizens. it does not happen in the land of the free until recently. it's shocking. it's pathetic. it's infuriating and depressing. but most troubling of all is congress has not stopped this.

it's actually gotten worse. during these past eight months congress has quietly sat by while the irs has proposed to cover up their targeting by rewriting the rules for 501(c)(4)s, rules which are an ardent attempt to shut us down completely. one of our most sacred fundamental rights in this country is freedom of speech. but the irs under this administration wants to strike out 226 years of history with a key stroke. under these new rules, we are not allowed to use the words oppose, vote, support, defeat or reject. we're not allowed to mention on our website or in any communication that would reach over 500 people even the name of a candidate who is running 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. we are not allowed to mention the name of a political party if they have a candidate running for 60 days before an election. no more voter registration drives, no more conducting get out the vote drives.

no creating or distributing voter guides outlining incumbents' voting records oopsz. we can't even host candidates for debates or forums less than 60 days before a general election. our officers and our leaders cannot speak publicly about incumbents, legislation and/or voting records without jeopardizing our tax the tus. does this sound like the land of the free or the home of the brave to you? the political targeting carried out by the irs is a fundamental transformation of the america we all grew up in. like catherine, i'm not here as a victim because i refuse to be a victim. i am a born free american woman, and these abuses of power put all americans' liberties at risk. our government is using its agencies as weapons against its own citizens, and history shows that unaddressed abuses of power lead to greater abuses of power. i, along with my fellow americans are looking to you on this committee to that you reall represent us. we implore you to use the full

force of the law to stop these abuses immediately and to bring to justice not only those who gave the orders, but all who helped carry them out. i want the federal government to know and the irs to know that you will not divide us, you will not conquer us, and we will not be silenced. thank you. >> thank you mrs. garretson. mr. sakhalin. >> chairman and ranking members, members of the committee, on behalf of the american center for law and justice, thank you for allowing me to participate in today's hearing. i represent 41 organizations that have filed a lawsuit against the internal revenue service. my first job out of law school was with the office of chief counsel of the ir sfrmts. i was a trial lawyer for chief counsel's office. i'm proud of that heritage in my legal career. i'm disappointed and dismays with what the irs is doing. i have prepared comments. i'd like those to be made part

of the record. i'm going to deviate from those for the moment because of a recent revelation. before i do that, mr. cartwright i'd like to give you information about the progressive groups that were targeted. however, this is the irs's own statistics through july 29 of last year. 104 conservative organizations, according to the irs were targeted. they were asked 1552 questions. the average question per group was 15, that did not include the subparts. 48 were approved which was an overall approval rating of only 46%. indeed seven progressive groups somehow got caught up in this drag net because of their names. they were asked a total of 33 questions or 4.7 questions per organization. seven of them were approved. that's 100%. this wasn't an equal opportunity

discrimination. this was targeted discrimination coming from the internal revenue service. what i'd like to address now is that our view is that that determination came from the highest ranks of the internal revenue service. just yesterday it was brought to the public's attention that an e-mail had been sent by lois lerner, the former head of tax-exempt. she pled the fifth amendment. based on the evidence that came out yesterday, if i was her lawyer, i would have told her to plead the fifth also. here is why. an e-mail from lois lerner with ruth mad grill from the office of tax policy, united states department of the treasury. it went to janine cook, deputy division counsel and associate chief counsel of the irs tax-exempt and government entities division. i went to victoria judson, division counsel, associate chief counsel, tax-exempt and government entities division. it went to nancy j. marks,

division counsel and associate chief counsel for tax-exempt and government entities and a senior adviser who conducted a probe for stephen miller, by the way, with hole by paz into the impropriety months before this e-mail. what was this e-mail? it was an e-mail we will work, quote, off plan, to device rules to curtail the activities of 501(c)(4) organizations. off-plan. that's very different from saying two rogue agents in cincinnati. if i was lois lerner's attorney, i would have told her to plead the fifth amendment, too, because there's serious liability. with regard to the facts of this case, we have 41 clients. late in december i haves i was contacted by the united states department of justice, the fbi and ms. bosser man was on the call as well. they requested at that point they might want to after the first of the year interview three of our 41 clients. they said they'd get back with us after the first of the year.

they did. and about the same day they got back with us, of course, the announcement about ms. bosser man's political contributions was made public. that was followed up by a statement to the "wall street journal" by an fbi source that there was indeed no criminal investigation. my office's comment back, the lawyer in my office tasked with dealing with this issue is a former assistant united states attorney. if there is no criminal investigation, why do you need to speak to our comments? no comment. they said they will not discuss the on going investigation. the next question which i think is a very serious one is the fact that the fbi, in desiring to speak with our client, we raised the concern of barbara bosser man. mr. cartwright with due respect, it's not because of her capabilities as a lawyer. i'm sure she's a fine lawyer, a career lawyer. you cited an ethics rule. chairman jordan, you cited the rule. the obligation is not on the

department of justice. it's on the lawyer. the lawyer has to avoid the appearance of impropriety. if you're heading up the investigation and we're assuming she is. know one has ever been very clear on that. you can't head up the investigation in an impartial method if the public thinks there's even a potential for bias or an inappropriate position. it was very simple for the department of justice to solve this. they didn't have to go in and ask for her political position. she should have the -- she has the affirmative obligation to tell her supervisor, i could be compromised in this, it would be best if someone maybe from public corruption took a look at that. i'm just saying that for the record so we're clear on the evidence. but what we have right here in the few moments i have left. >> she may have said -- she could have said that and the department say no, we want you to head the investigation. that's my hunch. >> that's why i'm saying that i don't want to impugn her integrity. i don't think it's fair to do that. >> i agree. i agree. >> i don't know what statements she made. she did have the obligation. let me say this, the irs attempt

now to change the rules falls on two systematic problems. number one, you don't get to change the rules for a posthoc justification of your prior bad and illegal comment, number one. number two, remember that the acting commissioner, when this first broke, proposed a scenario where he would do a 40% self certification to grant exemptions to the c 4 organizations if they would self certify that no more than 40% of their activity was deemed political. my clients do not exercise that. if some client of some lawyer did exercise that, there are over 300 of these groups targeted, if they did exercise that, how would you like to be the lawyer that told their client to exercise the 40% rule and then nine weeks later the irs say, by the way, 40%, we've changed the definition of political activity. you don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game to justify your bad behavior.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> through, mr. sec low. we appreciate that. recognize the choice chair of the committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to the witnesses. this targeting issue is obviously very concerning. but understanding the government being what it is, understanding human nature, people are apartment to abuse their power. what's even more concerning for me is that once you have an admission of that, once you have somebody taking the fifth amendment, there's zero interest in rectifying any of this, in what the irs has done, what the fbi has done, the justice department, gri with the witnesses. this is a total sham and the american people aren't getting the answers. ms. engelbrecht, you mentioned in your statement but it bears repeating, you had 20 years in bids, zero issues with any agencies. you file for king street and true the vote for status and you're visited by how many different agencies? which ones? fbi. >> fbi, irs, bureau of alcohol

tobacco and firearms. >> atf. >> osha. >> osha. >> and the texas branch of the epa. >> you mentioned very eloquently you're going to keep fighting, and i see that obviously. when you have to deal with this, you have a business, other things, trying to impact the country in a positive direction, when you have to deal with these agencies like this, it makes you less effective in pursuing your message. it has to. am i right? >> it certainly gives one pause to think there is interagency collusion against private citizenses. it's the weaponization of government. >> do you think people similarly sit rated to you may look at what happens to people to speak out and decide i don't want to deal with that and i'm just going to remain silent? >> that's absolutely the case. >> ms. garretson, what was the

irs asking you to provide? it seems like these were very invasive and intrusive questions. >> they sent me a list of approximately 80 queps. it was an eight-page document. some of the questions they asked, they wanted to know all of my members' names. they wanted to know volunteers' names. >> which by the way, we already know lois lerner disclosed for tax information she got caught red-handed in an e-mail, this stuff is supposed to be confidential. we know a lot of times it's not kept confidential. >> they wanted copies of every peach ever given, credentials of who the speakers were. they wanted to know if any of our members or volunteers were going to run for office and if so, what office? remember this was the 2012 election cycle when we got this questionnaire. they wanted to know if i had -- they wanted to know any communications that i have had with any legislative body, even within my own representative.

they wanted e-mails, phone contact. they wanted to know what i was saying to my legislator. >> i'll ask a similar question for you. just seeing that, a lot of people getting involved in politics for the first time, you're seeing all these questions, you think that some people just look at that and say i don't want to have to deal with this? in other words, this has caused some people to silence themselves? >> absolutely. we have a group in alabama who said they got their letter and said we're not going to do this and they stopped. >> ms. mitchell, do you agree with mr. sec low, this idea they were targeting everybody, liberal groups as well, that is false in your judgment, correct? >> it's absolutely false. the records don't substantiate that. i know that's one of the things that people have been using since last summer as a means of trying to discredit or to thwart the investigation. i'll give you one example. there was a report that was released by -- published in "usa today" last september which was an internal irs document that

listed 162 organizations that were on the watch list or development list at the irs. and i think the number that cuz calculated was 83% were conservative. i'll give you the example. this was a document prepared in november of 2011. king street patriots is listed on there with a -- it says on the report -- likely approval, november of 2011, likely approval. also on that list is one of the few liberal groups, progress texas. and references in the comments that this is an organization that appears to engage in anti-rick perry propaganda, november 2011. fast forward, progress texas gets its tax-exempt status by may of 2012. king street patriots did not get its tax-exempt status until two months ago after going through

yet more rounds of questioning. >> thank you. i'm about out of time. i want to ask mr. sec low, what the administration is trying to do with this c 4, is it safe to say that if that is in effect, that would disproportionally affect conservative groups? in other words, a lot of the labor unions and environmental groups would not be affected by that. is that correct? >> correct. a lot of those are exempt under different provisions of the internal revenue code. in that regard and with regard to the questioning aspect of this and the chilling effect which i think is what you're going after, we have a client, pro life organization that is one of the ones targetsed. the questions to them were so draconian in nature, this is what they asked. talking about the client's pro life position, this is the irs. the presentation of viewpoints or positions are unsupported by facts is a significant portion of the organization's communications. the facts that pro purport to support the viewpoint or positions are distorted.

this is from an irs agent. you make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express concerns more on the basis of strong emotional feelings than objective evaluations. the approached used in the organization's presentation is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the intended audience or read ship because it does not consider their background or training in the subject matter. who gave the irs the authority to say this, and how is it that the president of the united states can say there's not a smidgeon of corruption when the documents -- by the way, some of these signed by lois learner or holly pass -- how can they possibly say this? the thing i don't understand, mr. chairman, as the president was making his statements, as members of this committee were making statements, we had the documents in our possession from offices all over the country coast to coast. the agents told our clients it was being managed out of washington, and with the e-mail released yesterday we know how high up the chain.

i would urge the committee, when you start talking about associate chief council's divisional counsels, this is as high as it gets. >> well said. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i said at the outset of this hearing, i am deeply troubled regarding irs employees improper handling of applications for tax-exempt status. however, i am encouraged that senior leadership of the agency during this period has been removed. in december the senate confirmed a new commissioner of the irs and he has pledged his commitment to cooperating with congress and reforming the agency. i do look forward to working with him. while i welcome the opportunity to hear the concerns of these witnesses to participate in this hearing, i do fear that the committee is once again presenting only one side of the story. the committee's ten-month-long investigation has uncovered no evidence to support claims that the irs was targeting any groups

for political reasons. not one single witness has appeared before this committee and told us that the white house was involved in directing the conduct of the irs employees. the deputy inspector general for investigations identified absolutely no evidence of political motivation after a review of more than 5,000 e-mails of irs employees. that was russell george. he was the one whose report really sparked this committee's hearings. i personally asked him that question, did you find evidence of political motivation for what was going on? he said no. instead, as we learned in a transcribed interview last year it was a self-described conservative republican manager in cincinnati who oversaw irs employees who developed the inappropriate criteria for examination. mr. sec low, you were helpful with some statistics this morning. i wanted to ask you about that.

you mentioned 104 conservative groups targeted. is that the number? >> this is from the report of the irs dated through july 2010, 104 conservative organizations in that report were targeted. >> and then seven progressive targeted groups? >> seven progressive targeted groups, all of which received their tax exemption. >> does it give the total number of applications? in other words, 104 conservative groups targeted? how many conservative groups applied? >> in the tip that report there were numbers 283 that they had become part of the target. actually, applications, a lot of the irs justification for this was an increase in applications. there was actually a decrease in the number. >> does it give the number of progressive groups that applied? >> no. the only group that has the progressive -- >> no? >> the one i have -- the report i have in front of me which is the one which just has the seven. >> okay. thank yo